Emily's List v. FEC Judicial Overreach from DC

Campaign Legal Center blog

Campaign Finance Policy Ethics and Lobbying Reform FEC Activity Media Policy Redistricting Voting Rights Act

Judicial Overreach from the DC Circuit in Emily's List Posted September 18, 2009 by Tara Malloy The Emily's List v FEC decision from the D.C. Circuit Court throws aside judicial restraint in a rush to reach preferred policy results by further deregulating the election-related spending of political committees and “527 groups”. Such broad overreach is not the responsibility of the Circuit Court and amounts to nothing more than judicial activism. Read more

JURIST - Paper Chase: Indiana appeals court declares state voter identification law unconstitutional

JURIST - Paper Chase: Indiana appeals court declares state voter identification law unconstitutional

Shared via AddThis

Overtime: Chapter 3: How Al Franken's attorneys turned a tight senate election into a courtroom rout - TwinCities.com

Overtime: Chapter 3: How Al Franken's attorneys turned a tight senate election into a courtroom rout - TwinCities.com

Shared via AddThis

Scotus Petitions to Watch USSC 29Sept09

SCOTUSblog

---

• Analysis: New detention filter at Bagram
• Tuesday Round-up
• U.S.: No habeas rights at Bagram
• Petitions to Watch Conference of September 29, 2009 (Part I)

Analysis: New detention filter at Bagram Posted: 15 Sep 2009 11:49 AM PDT Analysis The Pentagon’s new policy to control who will be detained as a terrorism suspect at the U.S. military prison at Bagram, Afghanistan, is based on a concept of the enemy that has not withstood legal tests in federal habeas courts in the wake of the Supreme Court’s constitutional habeas ruling in Boumediene v. Bush last year. But that is no surprise at all: this is strictly a within-the-military policy, court papers filed Monday made clear. The Pentagon documents that spell out the new policy can be downloaded here. The policy is simply not designed for the civilian court process for habeas cases and, in fact, it is not meant to be reviewed by any civilian court. The military chain-of-command is its overseer. In a court filing, Obama Administration officials indicated that they will resist any effort at judicial oversight — what it calls “second-guessing” — of decisions made about Bagram detention. Disclosed to members of Congress in mid-July (but just now released publicly), it is a policy for holding what the Pentagon calls the “unprivileged enemy belligerent” who has been captured on a battlefield — but not necessarily in Afghanistan — and will go at least initially to the prison at Bagram Air Field outside Kabul. The new definition for such a belligerent, it turns out, is the same definition as the one the Obama Administration has put forth in civilian habeas cases involving Guantanamo Bay detainees — a definition that has been found too sweeping by at least four federal habeas judges. Detainees at Bagram get more procedural rights than they have had up to now, but those were kept limited precisely because Pentagon officials have found the procedural rights that detainees get in habeas courts to be too burdensome. Administratioon lawyers, referring to what has been occurring in habeas cases for Guantanamo prisoners, described those cases as involving ”intrusive factual development, onerous discovery, and logistical burdens.” The policy intentionally provides no role for outside lawyers. Comments in the court filing about the role lawyers have played in the Guantanamo cases show some of the reasons the Pentagon does not want lawyers involved with Bagram prisoners. “In 2008,” a footnote in the court brief said, “the military was required to facilitate more than 1,850 visits between counsel and their detainee clients at Guantanamo.” Another footnote says that, since 2007, “a single detainee there has had nearly 20 counsel visits.” At Bagram, each detainee, when his detention status is reviewed, gets a military officer as his “personal representative,” who is required to “act in the best interests of the detainee.” The officer is guaranteed against harm to his or her career if actions to aid the detainee are carried out in “good faith.” The representative is to help the detainee gather information favorable to him, and even to summon witnesses. But military officers involved in the review process decide whether such information or witnesses are “reasonably available” — a term that is not defined. (In the ongoing habeas cases, government lawyers have sought to have the judges define that phrase quite narrowly.) The basic compoonents of the new detention policy follow the steps the military has used for decades in deciding which battlefield captives must be held in custody because they represent a continuing threat — that is, the procedures outlined in Army Regulation 190-8. But the Obama Administration has added to those procedures new steps that were designed, Pentagon officials said, to “enhance the detainee’s ability to challenge his or her detention.” Those include the help of the “personal representative,” access to interpreters, mostly open proceedings before a three-officer review board, a right to sit in on all open sessions, a right to take the stand and testify (without being compelled to do so), to call witnesses, to question government witnesses, an present documents. The evidence the government puts before the review board will not be presumed to be valid, and thus is subject to some challenge. After an initial detention, based on a decision made by a review board within 60 days after the individual arrives at Bagram, the review boards come back into being every six months for each detainee at Bagram. The review board, with a majority controlling its votes, can recommend these options: continued detention at Bagram, transfer to Afghan officials for criminal prosecution, transfer to Afghan officials for rehabilitation, unconditional release, or transfer to a third country for prosecution if the detainee is not an Afghan. The policy does not show any higher-level review of the recommendations of the review board, but once such a board suggests that the individual be detained further, that is reviewed by a legal officer — for “legal sufficiency” only. It is unclear whether that means a review of whether the evidence justified the board’s recommendation, or only that the board followed the proper procedures. Nothing in the Pentagon documents appears to require that any member of the review board be an attorney, or that the personal representative have any legal training or skills, as the deal with evidence that sometimes has significant legal complications. The review boards are to have a military lawyer, to provide advice on “legal and procedural matters.” It is not clear how wide-ranging that lawyer’s participation would be, however. The documents on the new procedures provide no apparent guidance on the nature of the evidence that is to be weighed in making the “threat assessments” that would be the basis for deciding to hold a detainee further at Bagram. It is also unclear what kinds of evidence will be shared with the detainee’s “personal representative” nor does it spell out how much access that officer would have to classified material. Detainees will not be allowed to see classified information.

Tuesday Round-up Posted: 15 Sep 2009 06:55 AM PDT Richard Hasen keeps the Citizens United conversation going at Slate, commenting on the impact of the Court’s growing trend towards “broad, constitutional holdings” in “How Liberals Can Win By Losing at the Roberts Court.” Citing a recent Seventh Circuit opinion – and the Court’s affirmation of it – in the voter identification case Crawford v. Marion County, Hasen argues that bad losses in election law cases are sometimes best avoided by staying out of the Supreme Court. Likewise, he points out, the impact of losses at the Supreme Court can be mitigated by narrower opinions, rather than sweeping ones. If the Court decides in Citizens United’s favor but on narrow statutory grounds, Hasen anticipates, “there will be a lot of high-fives among supporters of campaign finance reform, from Elena Kagan on down.” In the same vein, Carl Pope comments on Citizens for Huffington Post, pointing out that Chief Justice Roberts’ efforts to shape himself as an incrementalist have led to expectations that he will encourage a narrow ruling in the case. Pope also offers a unique view of the significance of Alito, Scalia, and Thomas’s views on Citizens United, arguing that if the three justices choose to rule in the organization’s favor, their decisions will represent an “enormous incompatibility” with their purported judicial doctrine of “originalism”; that is, the claim that “that it is not previous Supreme Court precedent that should govern, but instead the intentions and understanding of those who drafted the Constitution (and its amendments).” Balkinization recaps Jeff Toobin’s recent New Yorker article on Obama’s “post-partisan” approach to judicial nominations (Supreme Court and otherwise), emphasizing Toobin’s treatment of the idea that the Obama administration will shift its focus away from court fights and toward legislative efforts. (In related news, Legal Beat reports that Obama has just nominated Virginia Supreme Court Justice Barbara Milano Keenan for a seat on the 4th Circuit). Balkanization also covers this past Saturday’s Washington Independent article on Senator Jim DeMint’s opinion on the constitutionality of social security and health care reform; Balkin points to the Court’s 1937 decision in Steward Machine Company v. Davis, arguing that DeMint’s stance might be based on the binding precedent of cases like this one. The AP is reporting that Sandra Day O’Connor criticized the tradition, maintained in about two dozen states, of judicial elections. Arguing that this practice leads to judges hesitant to make unpopular decisions, the former justice advocated for a universally merit-based system of judicial appointments, pointing out that landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education might not have been possible had the justices been concerned with the public opinion of their constituents. O’Connor’s comments came during a Seattle conference on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Caperton v. Massey Coal, in which the Court held that elected judges must step aside in cases in which they had received large campaign contributions from the parties. In the NYT column “The Local”, Tina Kelley discusses today’s oral arguments in an ongoing Third Circuit case brought in response to a school district policy barring Christmas Carols. According to attorneys for the parent who brought the suit, if the Court of Appeals does not find that a constitutional violation took place, they will petition for cert. Finally, the BLT covers the ongoing legal battle over the appropriateness of the name “Redskins” as the moniker for Washington’s NFL football franchise, reporting that lawyers for a group of Native Americans filed a cert petition today in Susan Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. While the group has petitioned for a name change under the Lanham Act, which bars disparaging trademarks, BLT reports that the case will turn on an interpretation of the doctrine of laches, which “acts like a statute of limitations to protect defendants from being sued for long-ago violations of rights.”

U.S.: No habeas rights at Bagram Posted: 15 Sep 2009 07:36 AM PDT The Obama Administration argued strenuously on Monday that the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision providing a right for imprisoned terrorism suspects to challenge their captivity does not apply to “approximately 600 long-term detainees” now being held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. “Habeas rights under the United States Constitution,” government lawyers argued in a 64-page legal brief, “do not extend to anemy aliens detained in the active war zone at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.” The new brief can be downloaded here. It was filed in the D.C. Circuit Court, in Maqaleh, et al., v. Gates, et al. (lead case docket 09-5265), seeking to overturn a federal judge’s ruling that the Justices’ ruling in Boumediene v. Bush does apply to at least three prisoners at Bagram. The three are Fadi Al Magaleh and Amin Al Bakri, both Yemenis, and Redha al-Najar, a Tunisian. The arguments rely primarily upon the government’s interpretation of Boumediene itself, as well as a post-World War II precedent — Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950). The legal contentions are summarized beginning at numbered page 18 of the main document that is linked above. In an Addendum, the Administration provides documents spelling out new procedural arrangements at Bagram for reviewing the continuing detention of the individuals held there. The Circuit Court is reviewing a decision last April by District Judge John D. Bates opening habeas rights to non-Afghans captured outside of Afghanistan but now held at the Bagram detention facility run by the U.S. military at an airbase 40 miles from Kabul. He found that the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision, although written to cover only the situation at Guantanamo Bay, outlined principles that would apply to other detention sites where the U.S. has a strong degree of control. In the new Administration brief, it argued simply that Judge Bates was wrong about Boumediene. That ruling, it contended, was narrow in scope, confined to Guantanamo’s situation. It would be an “unwarranted extension of such a singular precedent,” the brief said, to extend it “from the peaceful locale of Guantanamo to the war-torn zone of Afghanistan….Bagram Airfield is in the middle of an active theater of war…Bagram is fundamentally different from the ‘isolated’ military base at Guantanamo.” “This is the paradigmatic case,” it added, “in which lower courts should tread cautiously in extending a new and unprecedented Supreme Court decision beyond the specific contextin which it was announced.” The Court in Boumediene “made clear that its decision was dependent on the extraordinary nature of the United States presence in Guantanamo.” The Administration disputed Judge Bates’ finding that the lack of adequate procedural safeguards for those held at Bagram should be taken into account in determining whether the prisoners there should have habeas rights. The method for judging who must remain confined at Bagram, the brief asserted, has nothing to do with the basic question of whether the constitutional right of habeas should apply there. But, to the extent that the procedures for deciding on detention at Bagram do make a legal difference, the brief stressed that the government was increasing the legal options for prisoners there to challenge their ongoing confinement. Those new procedures, it added, “address [Judge Bates'] concerns. Those procedures, which it said will go into effect this month after a waiting period for review by Congress, “support, rather than undermine,” the conclusion that the Bagram detainees do not have a constitutional right of habeas. To bolster its contention that Boumediene should not reach to Bagram, the government filing said that, to do so, would make it possible for individuals held by the U.S. military anywhere in the world to go into U.S. courts to challenge their detention abroad, so long as they were held in a country other than their own. The brief expresses mild resentment over Judge Bates’ suggestion that the U.S. military may be using the Bagram prison site as a way to put detainees beyond the reach of American civilian courts. “The court’s fears of Executive abuse were not justified,” it said. “When the U.S. Government holds someone for an extended peiod of time at Bagram, it does so of necessity, not because of whim or convenience….The United States has no interest in holding detainees longer than necessary.” Lawyers for the three non-Afghan detainees involved in the case are to file their merits brief on Oct. 30. The Administration’s reply is due Nov. 16. No date has been set for oral argument in the Circuit Court.

Petitions to Watch Conference of September 29, 2009 (Part I) Posted: 15 Sep 2009 08:36 AM PDT The first edition of “Petitions to Watch” for the October 2009 term features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29. Because of the great number of petitions to be considered, we’ll have multiple installations leading up to the “long conference.” As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. Links to previous editions are also available in our archives on SCOTUSwiki. Docket: 08-1048 Title: Marquardt v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services Issue: Whether a federal agency that has issued a final decision denying on the merits an employment discrimination complaint without addressing the timeliness of the administrative complaint may raise a timeliness defense after petitioner brings suit in federal district court. Opinion below (5th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner’s reply Docket: 08-1103 Title: Michigan v. Williams Issue: Do decisions holding that the direction of a verdict of acquittal by a trial judge, taking the case from the jury, based on an erroneous understanding of that which constitutes the elements of the offense, constitutes an acquittal barring retrial, conflict with United States v. Martin Linen Supply, and if not, should that case be reconsidered? Opinion below (Michigan Court of Appeals) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Docket: 08-1131 Title: Phon v. Kentucky Issue: Whether a juvenile under the age of eighteen at the time of his offense is entitled to a new sentencing hearing in light of Roper v. Simmons, given that his original sentencing was premised on the theory that the death penalty was permissible and as such, the jury was instructed on the mitigating sentence of life without parole? Does the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? Opinion below (Kentucky Court of Appeals) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition (plain text document) Petitioner’s reply Docket: 08-1159 Title: Texas v. Martinez Issue: Whether the subjective intent of an interrogating officer is relevant to the analysis under Missouri v. Seibert when a suspect in custody discusses the case both before and after receiving Miranda warnings; whether statements uttered during the course of a pre-warning polygraph examination are material to the analysis under Missouri v. Seibert when a suspect in custody discusses the case both before and after receiving Miranda warnings; whether a magistrate’s issuance of Miranda warnings between a pre-warning polygraph examination at one location and a post-warning videotaped statement at another location operates as a sufficient break in continuity for the purposes of Missouri v. Seibert. Opinion below (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Docket: 08-1213 ; 08-1345 Title: Caruso v. Bazzetta ; Bazzetta v. Caruso Issue: Whether a plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action may retain disputed interim attorney fees awarded during the pendency of the litigation when the plaintiff’s status as a “prevailing party” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) is disputed. Opinion below (6th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Conditional cross-petition (08-1345) Brief in opposition Docket: 08-1232 Title: Carlyle Fortran Trust v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al. Issue: Whether a trustee has standing to assert claims “on behalf of debenture holders” under Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. Whether the Second Circuit’s “Wagoner rule” should apply in the instant case. Does a landlord creditor have standing to pursue interference claims against a third party for causing the tenant debtor in bankruptcy to breach the lease or claims for lease damages? If a purchase and sale agreement provides that the buyer is purchasing certain assets listed in an exhibit to the agreement, is the buyer’s signature on the agreement alone sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds (rather than requiring the buyer to sign the exhibit as well)? Does an E-mail from the buyer admitting that the buyer “bought” those assets satisfy the statute of frauds? Opinion below (9th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief of NVIDIA Corporation respondents in opposition Brief of respondents Gordon Campbell, James Whims, James Hopkins, Scott Seilers, and Alex Leupps in opposition Brief of respondent Richard Heddleson in opposition Petitioner’s reply Docket: 08-1242 Title: Beard v. Bond Issue: On federal habeas corpus review of the state court’s resolution of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, did the court of appeals apply the “doubly deferential judicial review” standard required by Knowles v. Mirzayance? Opinion below (3rd Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Conditional cross-petition (08-10282) Petitioner’s reply Docket: 08-1263 Title: Wong v. Belmontes Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel in the penalty-phase of a capital trial require counsel to present and explain evidence in support of an alternative theory that is inconsistent with his client’s testimony and that would likely open the door to previously excluded evidence that the defendant had personally committed another murder? Opinion below (9th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner’s reply Docket: 08-1283 Title: Choose Life Illinois, Incorporated, et al. v. White, Illinois Secretary of State Issue: Whether a state’s refusal to approve a “Choose Life” specialty license plate is content rather than viewpoint discrimination and violates the First Amendment and whether a specialty license plate program that grants authority to approve or reject new messages on plates is not facially invalid under the First Amendment if it vests that licensing authority in a legislative body. Opinion below (7th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner’s reply Brief amici curiae of Consistent Life, et al. Brief amici curiae of Choose Life, Inc., et al. Cases involving lawyers from Akin Gump or Howe & Russell (listed without regard to likelihood of being granted): Docket: 08-1287 Title: Family Dollar Stores, Inc. v. Morgan, et al. Issue: Can a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act be maintained when the employer’s liability turns on a statutory exemption that must be litigated individually based on “all the facts in a particular case” (29 C.F.R. § 541.700(a))? [Howe & Russell represents the respondent.] Opinion below (11th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner’s reply Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States Brief amicus curiae of National Retail Federation Brief amicus curiae of DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar

You are subscribed to email updates from SCOTUSblog	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

File4[1]Shar Thune 22

View more documents from Sharon Anderson.

Barack Hussein Obama's "birthday"_USIF_Records

Please DO NOT REPLY to this message. Replies will not be seen. Use the information at the bottom for e-mail address changes, subscription issues, and to contact GOPUSA.

FROM THE DESK OF Gary G. Kreep Barack Hussein Obama's "birthday" is coming up in just two weeks -- on August 4th... so we have a special birthday surprise planned for him, and I would like YOU to take part. FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD: https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2737 According to published reports, Barack Obama's legal team has been paid over one million dollars, so far, to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, or many other documents: Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii) Passport files University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles Harvard Law Review articles Harvard Law School records Columbia University records Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament" Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register -- but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country) Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004 Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard Illinois State Bar Association records Baptism records Obama/Dunham marriage license Obama/Dunham divorce documents Soetoro/Dunham marriage license Soetero/Dunham Adoption records By the way, the issue of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980's, because those records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. You see, Mr. Obama attended the school on a scholarship -- and there are questions as to whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students. The Obama attorneys have bent over backward to block us. He doesn't want anyone to see those records. He's STILL trying to hide them; those financial records STILL have not been released. WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn't he just release these documents to prove that he is a natural-born citizen and, therefore, qualified to serve as President -- especially his actual birth certificate? Isn't it time we FORCED him to come clean? His "birthday" is the PERFECT time to do it! FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD: https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2737 I dared bring Barack Obama into court to force him to produce his birth certificate, and put an end to the controversy over his status as a "natural born" citizen once and for all. And now he's coming after me and the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) -- the public-interest legal group that I founded over 30 years ago -- with a vengeance! Why? Because we dare to seek the TRUTH! And they must have something to hide, because Mr. Obama's attorneys have threatened to spend, and then sanction, USJF out of existence. That's why USJF has started efforts to convince State Attorneys General, all across the country, to investigate whether Barack Obama has committed perjury by knowingly filing false nomination papers... claiming to be constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as, President of the United States. As you know, the available evidence shows that he was born in Africa. Frankly, the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Africa -- not Hawaii as he claims -- and, therefore, cannot serve as the President of the United States, is compelling. First, Mr. Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate. If he has nothing to hide, what does he gain by refusing to allow the press to see the birth certificate? Second, the contention by Barack Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, that Mr. Obama was born in a particular Hawaiian hospital, only to claim that it was in a different hospital several years later. And, most recently, Barack Hussein Obama has contradicted himself, in writing, regarding the name of the hospital where he claims to have been born. Third, the erecting of a wall around Barack Obama's grandmother, the late Madelyn Dunham, by Mr. Obama, thus cutting off access to the one person then alive who would have been present if he was actually born in Hawaii. Fourth, the posting of law enforcement personnel at the two hospitals in Honolulu mentioned by Ms. Soetoro-Ng in an effort to block the press from discovering the truth about the birth certificate. Fifth, a taped phone conversation with Mr. Obama's step-grandmother in Kenya, who claims that she was present at his birth... in what is now called Kenya! Sixth, the "birth certificate" posted on the Obama campaign website and other liberal websites. Since Barack Obama was born in 1961, long before laser printers and office computers, his original birth certificate would be typewritten ... unlike the laser printed "copy" purported to be genuine. The evidence demands that Barack Obama answer why he has been hiding the truth from the American people about his eligibility to run for, and serve as, President! FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD: https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2737 It's TRUE. Not only does Mr. Obama continue to categorically refuse to produce the decisive evidence proving whether he is a "natural born" citizen, his high-priced LA-based "dream team" of attorneys has USJF squarely in its crosshairs! And they're loading both barrels! So, unless you help me and my team here at USJF to stand our ground in court, Mr. Obama's hired guns could blow a financial hole in USJF's ability to be the proverbial thorn in Mr. Obama's side! Barack Obama continues to battle any attempt to see his real birth certificate -- producing only a phony one posted on his website -- as well as fighting us tooth and nail as we seek access to his college records... records which we believe may prove that he was foreign born! USJF served that subpoena upon Occidental College to gain access to Mr. Obama's college records, and we are fighting to get at the truth on many other fronts, as well, including: Appealing a case filed by USJF in California, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary, on behalf of 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, calling into question Mr. Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen; Funding and assisting local attorneys and Plaintiffs, in similar lawsuits, in Ohio, Hawaii, and Mississippi -- AND we'll soon be filing more lawsuits; and We have initiated a campaign demanding that every State Attorney General in the country take action now to force Mr. Obama to just show us the TRUTH. You see, when Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, a "pretender to the throne." According to the Constitution, only a "natural born citizen" can occupy the presidency. Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama is NOT legally the President of the United States, unless he can prove that he is a "natural born citizen." What's more, every action taken by him while he occupies the White House may be invalid. If he cannot legally be President, every law passed by Congress will be null and void because the Constitution clearly requires that all laws be signed by the President... and, without a legally elected and sworn in President in office, that becomes an impossibility. Quite frankly, this crisis must be ended! And it must be ended NOW! And that's just what we're fighting to do. The United States Justice Foundation is spearheading a campaign to protect the United States Constitution... and your liberty. We have to press our case to stop Barack Obama from, apparently, illegally holding the Presidency, despite the ongoing threats against us. We will be filing additional lawsuits and administrative actions, over and above those already filed, if you will help us today. I need your help right now in order to win this battle. We need grassroots patriots all across America -- that's YOU -- to contact all 50 State Attorneys General. Helping USJF with this campaign is your best shot, and, possibly your only chance, at finding out whether Barack Obama is legally holding the Presidency of our great nation, or whether he is a fraud -- a usurper! My friend, please take action immediately. Please FAX all 50 State Attorneys General and please consider making your best possible gift to help USJF stop Barack Obama from continuing his apparent theft of the Presidency! FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD: https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2737 Are you willing to see the Constitution shredded by the Left? Will you sit back and do nothing while a foreign-born person may be illegally occupying the White House as President of the United States? We will not be intimidated. But we MUST have your financial help immediately if USJF is to survive this fight to the finish -- and if the U.S. Constitution is to weather this crisis intact! Our country is on the fast track to disaster...but you can help us keep the situation from getting worse. I pray that I'll hear from you today. Sincerely, Gary Kreep, Executive Director United States Justice Foundation P.S. This is the biggest political cover-up in American history! It would be so simple to release the documents to PROVE Obama is a natural-born citizen... IF THEY HAD THE DOCUMENTS! America has never before faced such a threat. Everything we hold dear is at risk with Barack Obama sitting as President without him releasing his actual birth certificate. Please, make your best possible contribution to USJF today: https://secure.responseenterprises.com/usjf_house/?a=2737 Barack Hussein Obama thinks he can get away with DUPING the American people and DESTROYING the U.S. Constitution. DON'T LET HIM DO IT! FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD: https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2737 To donate by check, please mail to: United States Justice Foundation National Processing Center Dept Code 2737 PO Box 131637 Houston, TX 77219-1637 The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) is a non-profit organization, whose tax-exempt status under IRS section 501(c)(3) has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Your contributions are tax deductible. Corporate contributions may be accepted. GOPUSA Friends E-mail List The content of this e-mailer does not constitute an endorsement by GOPUSA. This message was sent to GOPUSA subscribers on behalf of a paid advertiser. Through their support, GOPUSA can continue to bring you the best array of conservative news, information, commentary, and discussions. For questions regarding the content of this e-mailer, please contact the advertiser directly. Please note that this list is different than our daily news and commentary list. For more information about the GOPUSA Friends List, please click here. ++ Follow this link if you no longer wish to receive GOPUSA Friends e-mailers. ++ Need to change your e-mail address? Click here. Copyright © 2000-2009, GOPUSA.com A division of Endeavor Media Group, LLC P.O. Box 891354 Houston, TX 77289 ++ Contact Us

Swanson takes aim at credit arbitration - TwinCities.com

Swanson takes aim at credit arbitration - TwinCities.com

Shared via AddThis

MN_AG Swanson v

Attorney General Lori Swanson Sues National Arbitration Company For Deceptive Practices
Minnesota Company Is Listed In Millions Of Fine Print Consumer Contracts Nationwide Full Story

Click here to view Complaint

MN AG Lori Swanson

Read the Brief www.ag.state.mn.us

Taken from Nat.Law Journal

Minnesota AG sues arbitration company, alleging ties to collection industry

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson sued the National Arbitration Forum, the largest U.S. arbitration company for consumer credit disputes, alleging that the dispute resolution entity didn't disclose "extensive ties to the collection industry," her office said in a press release.

Mass. consumers can recover legal fees when their arbitration awards are upheld

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit recently ruled that parties can recover legal fees when successfully defending against motions to vacate arbitration awards based on Massachusetts consumer protection laws.

THIS WEEK'S ISSUE

OPINION

Equal justice issues merit attention

The justice system is out of reach for millions of Americans. More than 37 million people live below the federal poverty line, and millions more are too poor to afford a lawyer. The barriers to access should be on the minds of every judge, especially those on the highest court in the land.

MN AG Staff_Salarys_Lori Swanson

Office of the Attorney General

Minnesota Guidebook to State Agency Services 2005-2007

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Main Menu TOC Contact Help Search Advanced Search Service Paths Business Public Services Employment Government Education About Minnesota About Minnesota Election Information North Star Agencies By Branch Executive Judicial Legislative Emergency Capitol Security Call 651 296 2100 Top Searches Business Education Legal Social Technology

Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 102 State Capitol, St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: (651) 296-6196 Fax: (651) 297-4193 TTY: (651) 297-7206 Website: http://www.ag.state.mn.us Email: attorney.general@state.mn.us Attorney General Lori Swanson Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 8; Minnesota Rules, Chapters 2000-2009 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER for the state and is the legal advisor to the governor and all the constitutional officers. Her duties arise from the constitution, state statutes and common law. Every board, commission and agency of the state receives its legal counsel and representation from the attorney general. The attorney general provides legal assistance to local officials, such as county attorneys and sheriffs, in their efforts to enforce laws, and the Public Protection Division prosecutes difficult or complex criminal cases at the request of local prosecutors, especially serious crimes against people. She represents and advocates for consumers in areas of consumer protection, charities oversight, antitrust enforcement and utilities regulation. In these areas the attorney general has focused on privacy issues, protecting the public from unscrupulous businesses, combating scams and fraud targeted at senior citizens, and combating telemarketing fraud. The attorney general is also a member of the State Executive Council, the State Board of Investment, the Pardon Board and the Land Exchange Board. The attorney general, deputy attorneys general, solicitor general, and assistant attorneys general must file statements of economic interest with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Attorney General’s Staff The attorney general’s staff is headed by: - Solicitor General: Al Gilbert - Deputies Attorney General: Steven Gunn, Ann Kinsella, Karen Olson, David Voigt - Director of Administration: Rebecca Spartz - Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs: Brian Bergson. Other staff include attorneys, legal assistants and support staff in the following divisions: Appellate Division (651) 297-2040, Peter Marker, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division handles criminal appeals before the Minnesota Supreme Court and Minnesota Court of Appeals for 83 of Minnesota’s 87 counties. The division seeks to uphold convictions properly obtained and also to shape and develop criminal case law to enhance the protection of Minnesota citizens. Charities Division (651) 296-9412, Ann Bloodhart, assistant attorney general, division manager. The Charities Division maintains a registry of approximately 8,000 charities, charitable trusts and professional fundraisers. Each registered organization is required to file registration information and financial statements for its most recently completed fiscal year. This information is available to the public in hard copy or in computerized format. The division investigates and takes legal action against fraudulent and charitable solicitation campaigns, improper administration or use of charitable assets, and mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty by directors and trustees. The division receives notice of litigation involving charitable organizations and trusts, including probate court litigation, and may intervene in these actions. The division also supervises the dissolution of nonprofit corporations holding charitable assets. Torts / Employment Law Division (651) 282-5700, P. Kenneth Kohnstamm, assistant attorney general, division manager. Attorneys in the Civil Litigation Division defend lawsuits challenging the validity of state statutes and actions of state officials on constitutional grounds, represent judges and other members of the state judiciary, and assist other divisions of the attorney general’s office in litigation matters. This division also defends state agencies and state employees against all claims for personal injury, property damage, and wrongful death. The division handles litigation involving highway crash cases, persons injured in state correctional facilities and regional treatment centers, and accidents occurring in state parks. The Civil Litigation Division represents the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations and is responsible for defending employment-related lawsuits brought against the State of Minnesota, its state agencies and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. The division also provides legal advice to the Public Utilities Commission. Consumer Services Division (651) 296-3353, Chuck Ferguson, division manager. This division assists Minnesota citizens with a variety of consumer problems. It also answers questions and provides educational information to help consumers enforce their own rights and to prevent them from becoming victims of fraudulent conduct. the division performs these functions in a broad range of consumer-related matters, including telemarketing scams, landlord/tenant disputes, automobile disputes, and the like. Environmental Protection Division (651) 297-1075, Carla Heyl, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division provides legal assistance and representation to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Office of environmental Assistance, and the Environmental Quality Board. Advice and representation is provided with respect to, among other things, the enforcement of statutes and regulations protecting the water, air and land from pollution. The division also represents the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in federal and state rulemaking, contested case hearings, and all judicial proceedings. Health and Antitrust Division (651) 296-9412, Kristen Olsen, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division represents the Department of Health, which is responsible for the enforcement of certain state health laws. Responsibilities include regulation of health care facilities, asbestos contractors, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and restaurants; handling public health aspects of communicable diseases; and dealing with public health aspects of environmental concerns related to such matters as protection of the state’s drinking water. The division also enforces state and federal antitrust laws within the State of Minnesota. By enforcing the antitrust laws, the division helps consumers, business and government obtain the best possible environment in which to purchase goods and compete. The division also actively monitors mergers and acquisitions that may affect consumers and businesses within the State of Minnesota. Health Licensing Division (651) 296-7575, Tiernee Murphy, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division represents 18 boards that license and discipline health care professionals such as doctors, dentists, nurses, and social workers. The division represents the boards in disciplinary proceedings against licensees and in contested cases before the Office of Administrative Hearings. Attorneys also seek injunctive relief on behalf of the boards against individuals who practice without a license. Complaints against a licensed professional should be filed directly with the board licensing the individual. Health Licensing Investigation Division (651) 296-7575, Hollice Allen, division manager. Investigators in this division investigate complaints filed with the state licensing boards governing health professionals such as doctors, nurses, dentists, social workers, and psychologists. The division works closely with the licensing boards and with the office’s licensing division. Labor / Corrections / Human Rights Division (651) 297-1075, Kelly Kemp, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division represents the departments of Human Rights, Labor and Industry, Economic Security, Corrections and Veteran’s Affairs as well as the Bureau of Mediation Services, the Public Employee Retirement Association, Minnesota State Retirement System, Teacher’s Retirement Association, Veteran’s Home Board, and the Health Benefits Division of the Department of Employee Relations. On behalf of its client agencies, the division provides advice and handles litigation on a variety of issues before agencies, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the courts. Its major human rights activity, through negotiation, mediation, and litigation, is handling of cases where the Department of Human Rights has determined that illegal discriminatory conduct has occurred. Its two major activities on behalf of the Department of Labor and Industry are litigating workplace safety and health violations and defending the Special Compensation Fund from unwarranted workers’ compensation claims. Human Services Division (651) 297-1075, Frank Ling, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division provides legal assistance and representation to the Department of Human Services. Division attorneys provide advice and representation on a wide range of issues including income assistance programs (AFDC, GA refugee assistance, child support), social services for children and adults (maltreatment, foster care, adoption), and licensing of day and residential treatment programs. The division also represents several regional treatment centers that provide residential and treatment services to persons who are judicially committed as mentally ill, developmentally disabled, psychopathic personalities, and chemically dependent. Medicaid Fraud Division (651) 296-9412, Deborah Peterson, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division brings criminal and civil suits against medical service providers who submit fraudulent claims for reimbursement to the state, including doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nursing homes, clinics, and ambulance services. Responsibilities include investigating and prosecuting patient neglect and abuse allegations at Medicaid-funded facilities and investigating and prosecuting the misuse of patient trust accounts at facilities that receive Medicaid funds. Public Finance/ Natural Resources Division (651) 297-2040, Christie B. Eller, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division represents the Departments of Finance, Administration, and Employment and Economic Development as well as other state boards, agencies and departments that deal with financial matters, including the State Board of Investment, Housing Finance Agency, Iron Range Resources Agency, Public Facilities Authority, Agricultural and Economic Development Board and Rural Finance Authority. In addition, the division represents numerous other state boards such as the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, the Client Security Board, and the Board of Teaching. Natural Resources division provides legal assistance and representation to the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Board of Animal Health, the State Archaeologist, the Indian Affairs Council, and other related agencies. Advice is provided with respect to laws protecting Minnesota’s natural resources, including its waters, forests, and wildlife. In addition, the division provides advice and representation to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, which regulates the areas of banking, insurance, securities and real estate, among others. The principal work of the division involves representing the Commerce Department in litigation involving matters such as securities and real estate fraud, defense of constitutional challenges to client agency legislation, and disciplinary cases against persons licensed by client agencies. Public Safety/Gambling Division (651) 297-2040, Jeff Lebowski, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division provides legal services to the Department of Public Safety, including the State Patrol, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Driver and Vehicle Services, Emergency Management and the Office of Pipeline Safety. Staff attorneys prosecute violations of the state’s implied consent laws and other drivers’ license revocation cases throughout the state. In addition, the division represents other clients, including the Minnesota Racing Commission, the Gambling Control Board, Private Detectives Board, the Crime victims Reparations Board, and the State Patrol. Residential Utilities Division (651) 297-1075, Jessica Palmer-Denig, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division acts as an advocate for residential and small business customers of utilities’ services and products in state proceedings. The division assists residential and small business customers with specific questions or problems regarding their utility service. Division staff are available to assist customers in disputes with utilities on issues such as unauthorized charges, service problems, and disconnections. For assistance on utility matters, contact the Residential and Small Business Utility Division at 900 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101. Tax Litigation / Education Division (651) 296-3421, Tamar Gronvall, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division handles all litigation for the Department of Revenue. Staff attorneys provide legal aid in the administration and collection of state taxes, including income, sales, inheritance, gift, occupation, gross earnings, deed, petroleum, and tobacco taxes. Telecommunications and Energy Division (651) 296-7575, Julia Anderson, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division litigates on behalf of the Department of Commerce in the areas of telecommunications and energy law. The department is responsible for the regulation of most of Minnesota’s telephone, gas and electric utilities, and is the decision-maker for energy conservation programs throughout the state. Division attorneys represent the department before the Public Utilities Commission, federal regulatory agencies, and state and federal courts. The division also provides legal representation, primarily in the consumer protection area, to the Weights and Measures Division of the Department of Commerce. The division advises the Department of Commerce on a wide range of energy and utility law issues. Public Protection Division (651) 297-2040, Matthew Frank, assistant attorney general, division manager. This division prosecutes serious crimes in trial courts throughout Minnesota and handles psychopathic personality or sexually dangerous person commitments when requested by a county attorney under Minnesota Statutes 8.01. The division also provides legal advice and prosecution support to the Minnesota Gang Strike Force and prosecutes white collar and drug offenses. Attorneys General since Statehood: For more detailed information, visit the Legislative Reference Library website: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/mngov/Mngov.htm Name P.O. address Assumed office Charles H. Berry Mankato May 24, 1858 Gordon E. Cole Faribault January 4, 1860 William Colville Lake City January 8, 1966 F.R.E. Cornell Minneapolis January 10, 1868 George P. Wilson Winona January 9, 1874 Charles M. Start Rochester January 10, 1880 W.J. Hahn Minneapolis March 11, 1881 Moses E. Clapp Fergus Falls January 5, 1887 H.W. Childs Wadena January 2, 1893 W.B. Douglas Moorhead January 2, 1899 W.J. Donahower St. Paul April 1, 1904 Edward T. Young Appleton January 2, 1905 George T. Simpson Winona January 4, 1909 Lyndon A. Smith Montevideo January 1, 1912 Clifford L. Hilton Fergus Falls March 9, 1918 Albert F. Pratt Anoka December 21, 1927 G.A. Youngquist Crookston February 2, 1928 Henry N. Benson St. Peter November 20, 1929 Harry H. Peterson St. Paul January 3, 1933 William S. Ervin Minneapolis December 15, 1936 J.A.A. Burnquist Minneapolis January 2, 1939 Miles Lord Minneapolis January 3, 1955 Walter F. Mondale Minneapolis May 4, 1960 Robert W. Mattson Minneapolis December 30, 1964 Douglas M. Head Minneapolis January 2, 1967 Warren Spannaus Minneapolis January 4, 1971 Hubert H. Humphrey III New Hope January 3, 1983 Mike Hatch Burnsville January 4, 1999 Lori Swanson January 2, 2007

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Last Updated: 07/13/2007 x Version: 1.2001.1214 Copyright © 2001 State of Minnesota x This page served by Lotus Domino 5.0.8